CRS – Diplomatic and Embassy Security Funding Before and After the Benghazi Attacks, Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy. September 10, 2014 

“As Congress investigates the issues surrounding the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, some Members have questioned whether security funding was adequate or was a factor that may have contributed to inadequate security at that facility.  The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 authorizes the Department of State to “use appropriated and other funds to provide the maximum security of U.S. government-owned or leased properties and vehicles abroad.” After several attacks occurred on U.S. facilities and other American interests in Beirut, Lebanon and Kuwait in the early 1980s, Congress passed the  Diplomatic Security Act of 1986, further emphasizing the role the Secretary of State plays in providing funding for the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel worldwide (hereafter referred to in this report as diplomatic/embassy security). Following the August 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, an independent panel, chaired by Admiral William Crowe reported that it was “most disturbed by two inter-connected issues:  First, the inadequacy of resources to provide protective measures against terrorist attacks; and second, the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the US Government by the Congress, Department, other agencies in general, and the part of many employees—both in Washington and in the field.” Responding to that panel, Congress, within the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA), established more stringent security requirements and mandated additional training, authorized $900 million to be spent annually for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) for the next five years (FY2000-FY2004), and mandated the Secretary of State to convene an Accountability Review Board (ARB) whenever serious injury, loss of life, or significant destruction of property occurs. It required co-location of virtually all agency personnel in a country and 100-foot perimeters around diplomatic facilities, but also provided waiver authority for those measures.”